Paper #5 is very exciting.  To marketing people, that is, not to
scientists:

infected with HCV, most of whom reside in developing nations and many of
whom may be coinfected with HIV and/or HBV and have very limited access to
treatment. Even if only 10% of such individuals advanced to cirrhosis, the
global burden of this infection is staggering.  Thus HCV, like HIV, is a
disease of two worlds, one where new infections are rare and effective
treatments are available and one where high population density, inadequate
preventive strategies and inaccessible treatments maintain HCV as a common
disease with devastating consequences."

Now if you read that, doesn't it give you an idea that there's money to be
made?
This "natural history of HCV" nowhere mentions when or where 'HCV' was
discovered or isolated.  It just enters the story unobtrusively.
Suddenly, it's there.
I agree with one point: HCV is like HIV.

Paper #14   Is Cirrhosis Inevitable in HCV?

than in HCV monoinfection. It is generally accepted, as also reported from
this study, that HCV progresses slowly so if you live long enough
cirhhosis will develop. Therefore, HIV/HCV coinfection becomes a more
deadly disease. Many more coinfected patients appear to be at risk for
developing cirrhosis within a much shorter time than moninfected."

Oh sure!  I can believe that.  If you're deemed to be infected with HIV,
you get treated with HAART.     If you had liver trouble already, no
matter what caused it, HAART will finish you off.

infected individuals. Because relationship between the severity of
fibrosis and age in Asian patients is similar to that seen in Caucasian
patients it is likely that similar rates of cirrhosis will be seen in
other patients who are infected for more than 60 years...."

Hey! This paper is fun! If you live long enough, you'll die of
something...

And now a word from our sponsor:

reflection of the long-term impact of chronic HCV infection among Asian
patients, and if the findings can be extended to other populations, this
would clearly indicate that substantially more, perhaps most, persons
infected with HCV are likely to reach end-stage liver disease than had
been thought hitherto. It also implies that treatment should indeed be
universal for all HCV-infected persons, regardless of their histologic
status, in the hope of blunting this progression.
In addition, it raises the issue of the need for even more transplantation
services to accommodate the anticipated (on the basis of this study)
"epidemic" of cirrhosis-related end-stage liver disease and cancer that
awaits these patients."

I guess the drug therapy and liver transplantation business will be
booming in the next 60 years.

So does HCV exist?  Who cares...

No conpiracy required.  There is little incentive to question existing
dogma, even if it was not properly established in the first place
(using controlled, double-blinded experiments, for example).

There are many scientific models that coexist, yet one must be correct,
or at least more accurate, than the other.  Those who don't examine the
points made by the Perth Group, for example, are not doing science,
which requires that all scientific challenges be taken seriously.  A
hypothesis is supposed to be scrutinized; otherwise, we would still
believe in a flat earth.

As an example of a what is going on all the time (though the public is
not aware of it), the following report is from TODAY.  There are
similar examples all over the place.  Go to www.gilbertling.org and
read about how he has tried to get funding for more experiments to
clarify his A-I hypothesis, but because a bureaucrat does not like him,
the experiments are not getting done.

Wake up and smell the coffee, people!

9/24/2005
"Sugar Helps Control Cell Division"

"...The dogma for decades has been that the cycle of cell division is
controlled by the appearance and disappearance of certain proteins
called cyclins, but experiments have shown that you can knock out any
of these and still get perfectly normal cell division..."

Source: www.sciencedaly.com

The other intesting thing is that there really is no "HIV/AIDS
hypothesis," because it varies from one period of time to another and
from one place to another.  Let's start with exactly what the
hypothesis is, otherwise, there can be no scientific debate.  Most
people in the USA (including doctors) think that after infection, a
person will live several years, perhaps a decade or so, then die of
"immune system failure," yet there is the following:

"Less than a quarter of HIV-positive men with haemophilia in the United
Kingdom are still alive 20-25 years after infection with HIV,"
So over 20% of people who are already very ill people can live over 25
years or so with HIV.

And then: "... liver disease has become the major cause of death
amongst HIV-positive men with haemophilia."

This is not an "AIDS defining illness," nor has anyone suggested it is.

How is this possible?  What is the hypothesis, exactly?

Source: Sabin C et al. Twenty five years of HIV in haemophilic men in
Britain: an observational study. BMJ, September 16th, 2005 (online
edition).

I have accepted my version of the Duesberg challenge, but nobody wants
to take me up on it, so they don't even believe in their own nonsense.

Then I asked, hypothetically, if someone did take me up on the
challenge, what would you inject me with?  I will only allow "pure
virus" and an inert susbstance in which to suspend the virus.  How are
you going to obtain this virus, since it was never isolated?  How will
you isolate it, exactly?  Explain it.  Only fragments, either of the
wrong size and right shape (according to the dogma, anyway) or of the
correct size and wrong shape, have ever been found, and they are most
likely from humans cells that destroyed in the massive oxidative stress
that actually does cause most of what is called "AIDS" these days (in
the USA, at least).

No conspiracy, just stupidity, fear of reprisals and loss of grants,
greed, etc. - all the things that make us human.

So take me up on the Duesberg challenge, or we could agreee upon a Hep
C challenge.  How, exactly, are you going to isolate this "Hep C
virus?"  If you beleive in a virus, isolate it and let's talk about
doing a experiment that will determine who is correct.  The problem, of
course, is that you cannot isolate what is not present.

Even true believers have to admit the nonsense, though they do it in a
quiet way:

"...the virus has not been grown in tissue culture. Thus, basic studies
of the virus are not possible and studies are limited to gene
sequencing and clinical studies. and clinical studies..."

Source: http://www.hepnet.com/hkn/c11.html

Do you people understand the implications of this?  Why can't they grow
it?  There is no reason, except that it does not exist!

They say: " The virus for hepatitis C was cloned in 1989," but what
does this mean, exactly?  Again, fragments were found that most likely
were part of human cells that underwent tremendous stress and died off.
These fragments were cloned and said to be "Hep C."  Why?  So that a
big company could make big money.  Does that surprise you?  Is it the
first example in human history of a company claiming something that is
not likely true in order to make huge profits?  Do you think everyone
in the company understand exactly what is going on at the molecular
level?  Let's be real now!  You are the ones with the naive view of
humanity.

The "studies" that allegedly support the virus claim are circular logic
- they assume a virus.  In science, you cannot assume what you seek to
demonstrate.  That is what religious debate is often like, for example,
assuming the Bible is the word of God, when there is no way to know
that scientifically.  So of course the studies will appear to support
the virus idea.  Do they compare this claim to an oxidative stress
hypothesis?  Find me a citation that answers that question.

I have confidence that I could "cure" "Hep C" in an animal model, but
these clowns admit that they have not been able to create one for "Hep
C," which is a damning statement by itself.  In people, we are dealing
with "patients" who have done tremendous damage to themselve, and who
usually don't listen to any authorities, let alone those who have no
power to enforce their demands (such as doctors), which is why I offer
myself up to demonstrate that this is all nonsense.  However, because
there is no virus, there is no way for anyone to take me up on my
offer, even if they were naive enough to do so.

snip

You haven't looked for it and wouldn't know what to do if the evidence
was staring you in the face. At best, you live in a world of
technology that has not gotten passed about 1938.

NOTHING in ANY of your posts suggests that your unsujpported opinion
should be given more attention than a rat's fart.

        George M. Carter

Ah...alcohol impairs liver function depending on the dose and duration
of use. The hepatotoxicity of marijuana is hardly confirmed by this
study; the evidence for it is weak at best.

Alcohol and marijuana do not cause AIDS. Alcohol may of course cause
cirrhosis. You think it's just the same as HCV-related cirrhosis,
histopathologically  speaking?

        George M. Carter

So it is your belief that all antiretrovirals used to treat HIV are
hepatotoxic.

Iconoclaster, how can they not be as pointless as the first half -- look at
the dates!? Please let us know if you find at least references to the
seminal publications announcing the existence of HCV -- i.e. the Gallo
papers of HCV. Happy reading.

Bullshit. This is what I mean. This cannot be passed off as an
"analysis."

It is merely you spewing an unfounded and unqualified opinion.

        George M. Carter